IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v32y2023i1p129-154..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the structure of internal combustion engine and battery electric vehicles: implications for the architecture of the automotive industry

Author

Listed:
  • Johann Peter
  • Benedikt Alexander

Abstract

How will the technological shift from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) to battery electric vehicles (BEVs) change the architecture of the automotive industry? To explore this question, we systematically compare the technological structure of ICEVs and BEVs using data from large incumbent automobile companies and start-ups. While our analysis based on technical descriptions and design structure matrices suggests that the power train of BEVs is structurally simpler compared to the power train of ICEVs, BEVs are slightly less modular than ICEVs. We discusss important strategic implications of this finding for incumbent firms and start-ups.

Suggested Citation

  • Johann Peter & Benedikt Alexander, 2023. "Exploring the structure of internal combustion engine and battery electric vehicles: implications for the architecture of the automotive industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(1), pages 129-154.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:32:y:2023:i:1:p:129-154.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dtac049
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Langlois, Richard N., 2002. "Modularity in technology and organization," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 19-37, September.
    2. Tee, Richard & Davies, Andrew & Whyte, Jennifer, 2019. "Modular designs and integrating practices: Managing collaboration through coordination and cooperation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 51-61.
    3. Timothy J. Sturgeon, 2002. "Modular production networks: a new American model of industrial organization," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(3), pages 451-496, June.
    4. Jacobides, Michael G. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn & Augier, Mie, 2006. "Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1200-1221, October.
    5. Michael G. Jacobides & C. Jennifer Tae, 2015. "Kingpins, Bottlenecks, and Value Dynamics Along a Sector," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 889-907, June.
    6. Lyra J. Colfer & Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2016. "The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(5), pages 709-738.
    7. Jiang, Hong & Lu, Feng, 2018. "To Be Friends, Not Competitors: A Story Different from Tesla Driving the Chinese Automobile Industry," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 491-499, September.
    8. David J. Teece, 2007. "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(13), pages 1319-1350, December.
    9. Langlois, Richard N. & Robertson, Paul L., 1992. "Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 297-313, August.
    10. Eppinger, Steven D. & Browning, Tyson R., 2012. "Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262017520, December.
    11. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    12. Akira Takeishi, 2002. "Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labor: The Case of Automotive Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 321-338, June.
    13. Paul Windrum & Michelle Haynes & Peter Thompson, 2019. "“Breaking the mirror”: interface innovation and market capture by Japanese professional camera firms, 1955–1974," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(5), pages 1029-1056.
    14. Nicholas Argyres & Lyda Bigelow, 2010. "Innovation, Modularity, and Vertical Deintegration: Evidence from the Early U.S. Auto Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 842-853, August.
    15. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Joachim Henkel, 2015. "Modularity and intellectual property protection," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(11), pages 1637-1655, November.
    16. Brusoni, Stefano & Prencipe, Andrea, 2001. "Unpacking the Black Box of Modularity: Technologies, Products and Organizations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(1), pages 179-205, March.
    17. Michael G. Jacobides & John Paul MacDuffie & C. Jennifer Tae, 2016. "Agency, structure, and the dominance of OEMs: Change and stability in the automotive sector," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(9), pages 1942-1967, September.
    18. Anna Cabigiosu & Arnaldo Camuffo, 2012. "Beyond the “Mirroring” Hypothesis: Product Modularity and Interorganizational Relations in the Air Conditioning Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 686-703, June.
    19. Mari Sako, 2004. "Supplier development at Honda, Nissan and Toyota: comparative case studies of organizational capability enhancement," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(2), pages 281-308, April.
    20. Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2008. "Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(1), pages 155-195, February.
    21. Youngjin Yoo & Ola Henfridsson & Kalle Lyytinen, 2010. "Research Commentary ---The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 724-735, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefano Brusoni & Joachim Henkel & Michael G Jacobides & Samina Karim & Alan Mac & Phanish Puranam & Melissa Schilling, 2023. "The power of modularity today: 20 years of “Design Rules”," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(1), pages 1-10.
    2. Nicholas Burton & Peter Galvin, 2022. "The effect of technology and regulation on the co-evolution of product and industry architecture," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 31(4), pages 1056-1085.
    3. Anna Cabigiosu, 2018. "When do modular dominant designs emerge? A theoretical framework," Working Papers 05, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    4. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    5. Nicholas Burton & Peter Galvin, 2020. "Component complementarity and transaction costs: the evolution of product design," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 845-867, August.
    6. Burton, Nicholas & Galvin, Peter, 2022. "Modularity, value and exceptions to the mirroring hypothesis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 635-650.
    7. Elia, Stefano & Massini, Silvia & Narula, Rajneesh, 2019. "Disintegration, modularity and entry mode choice: Mirroring technical and organizational architectures in business functions offshoring," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 417-431.
    8. Stephan Leitner, 2023. "Designing organizations for bottom-up task allocation: The role of incentives," Papers 2301.00410, arXiv.org.
    9. Oliver Alexy & Joel West & Helge Klapper & Markus Reitzig, 2018. "Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1704-1727, June.
    10. Rahul Kapoor, 2013. "Persistence of Integration in the Face of Specialization: How Firms Navigated the Winds of Disintegration and Shaped the Architecture of the Semiconductor Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1195-1213, August.
    11. Jiang Wei & Yang Yang & Sali Li, 2021. "Mirror or no mirror? Architectural design of cross-border integration of Chinese multinational enterprises," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 1399-1430, December.
    12. Tee, Richard & Davies, Andrew & Whyte, Jennifer, 2019. "Modular designs and integrating practices: Managing collaboration through coordination and cooperation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 51-61.
    13. Pujadas, Roser & Valderrama, Erika & Venters, Will, 2024. "The value and structuring role of web APIs in digital innovation ecosystems: the case of the online travel ecosystem," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121118, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Jacobides, Michael G. & Cennamo, Carmelo & Gawer, Annabelle, 2024. "Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    15. Simge Tuna & Stefano Brusoni & Anja Schulze, 2019. "Architectural knowledge generation: evidence from a field study," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(5), pages 977-1009.
    16. Luo, Jianxi, 2018. "Architecture and evolvability of innovation ecosystems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 132-144.
    17. Pujadas, Roser & Valderrama, Erika & Venters, Will, 2024. "The value and structuring role of web APIs in digital innovation ecosystems: The case of the online travel ecosystem," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    18. Panos Constantinides & Ola Henfridsson & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2018. "Introduction—Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 381-400, June.
    19. Vincent Frigant & Damien Talbot, 2003. "Convergence et diversité du passage à la production modulaire dans l'aéronautique et l'automobile en Europe," Post-Print hal-00246171, HAL.
    20. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:32:y:2023:i:1:p:129-154.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.